Kaufman v. Farley Mfg. Co.......Contracts.... 78 Iowa, 679.... 462 74 Mich. 202.... 627 Knowles v. Mulder .... Lacy v. Getman...... Laffrey v. Grummond.. Lawton v. Steele Leonard v. Broughton. Lubbock v. McMann.. Lucas v. Pennsylvania Co.. Martin v. Gilbert....... McCandless v. Belle Plaine Canning Co..... .Animals.......... ..Master and servant. 119 N. Y. 109.... 806 ...... ..Police power. ...119 N. Y. 226.... 813 .... 347 Homestead....... 82 Cal. 226...... 108 323 Estoppel..........119 N. Y. 298.... 823 ·Neg. instruments.. 78 Iowa, 161.... 429 .....119 N. Y. 1...... 793 McCreery v. Day..... Contracts...... McDonald v. Chicago etc. R'y Co.. Master and servant. 41 Minn. 439.... 711 75 Tex. 181..... 884 .Malicious prosec'n.. 41 Minn. 524.... 727 Memphis etc. R. R. Co. v. Grayson. {Corporations 88 Ala. 572.............. 69 vires. ...... Memphis etc. R. R. Co. v. Woods. Corporations .. 88 Ala. 630...... 81 ...........Husband and wife.. 78 Iowa, 177.... 431 75 Tex. 151........... 879 75 Tex. 4.. 867 75 Tex. 111..... 874 88 Ala. 517...... 58 88 Ala. 78. 21 ........ Executions.. . Robbery .......... ....... 118 N. Y. 468.... 771 41 Minn. 146.... 679 Omaha and G.-S. & R. Co. v. Tabor. Mines and mining.. 13 Col. 41.. Otsego Lake, Township of, v. Kirsten. ...... 185 Official bonds...... 72 Mich. 1.............. 524 Park v. Detroit Free Press Co....Newspaper libel.... 72 Mich. 560.... 544 People v. Grand River Bridge Co..Quo warranto..... 13 Col. 11. People v. Stuart........... 182 .Removal of officers.. 74 Mich. 411.... 644 Durston.Constitutional law .119 N. Y. 569.... 859 ..Homicide.... ...121 Ind. 433...... 408 ..Real estate broker.. 42 Kan. 664.... 512 .Neg. instruments...120 Ind. 162...... 319 ...... 388 Rowe v. St. Paul etc. R'y Co.....Surface water..... 41 Minn. 384.... 706 ........ Smith v. Georgia P. R'y Co...... Smith v. Smith...... Soltau v. Gerdau.. Speier v. Opfer..... .... Spring Valley Water Works v. City of San Francisco.... State v. Reynolds... State ex rel. v. Blend.. Tabor v. Hoffman..... .... ...... 78 Iowa, 404.... 452 .Inventions.........118 N. Y. 30..... 740 Taylor v. Evansville etc. R. R. Co.. Master and servant. 121 Ind. 124...... 372 Ten Eyck v. Pontiac etc. R. R. Co.. Corporations.... 74 Mich. 226.... 633 Treat v. Dunham.... .Attachment. 74 Mich. 114.... 616 Tuttle v. Campbell....... ...Co-tenancy........ 74 Mich. 652.... 652 ..... Uransky v. Dry Dock etc. R. R. Co.. Husband and wife..118 N. Y. 304.... 759 { sion of just 13 Col. 265................ 200 Warren Chemical etc. Co. v. Agency... }Agency................. Holbrook.... Wasson v. Lamb .118 N. Y. 586.... 788 ..........Banks and banking. 120 Ind. 514...... 342 Western U. Tel. Co. v. Adams....Telegraph co's..... 75 Tex. 531..... 920 Westhafer v. Patterson..... Wright v. Mutual B. L. Ass'n....Insurance... .118 N. Y. 237.... 749 Yates Co. Nat. Bank v. Carpenter. Execution...... 78 Iowa, 396.... 449 .119 N. Y. 550.... 855 88 Ala. 196...... 38 ...Drainage.........121 Ind. 99....... 357 CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA. HOLMES V. STATE. [88 ALABAMA, 26.] CRIMINAL LAW-EVIDENCE-PROOF OF CHARACTER. A witness who testifies on direct examination that he has never heard anything against defendant may be asked on cross-examination if he has not heard that defendant "wore stripes" while working on the streets. CRIMINAL LAW-PROOF OF CHARACTER. - WITNESS IS INCOMPETENT TO TESTIFY, either affirmatively or negatively, as to character, who knows nothing of the reputation borne by defendant in the neighborhood in which he lived, or where he was known, and who was not in such position, as to defendant's residence or acquaintances, that the fact of his not hearing anything against him would have any tendency to show that nothing had been said, and that therefore his character was good. CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER. The killing of one who intercedes to prevent the accused from unlawfully shooting at another is murder, and not manslaughter, though the fatal shot was fired accidentally. CRIMINAL LAW — MURDER MANSLAUGHTER. - Sudden provocation, acted on in the heat of passion produced thereby, may reduce a homicide to manslaughter; but if the provocation is not of such character as would, in the mind of a reasonable man, stir resentment to violence endangering life, the killing is murder. INDICTMENT and conviction for murder in the first degree. The defendant, Holmes, and one Woods, both freedmen, quarreled, after which defendant went away, but soon returned with a pistol in his hands. The deceased told him that he did not want any trouble on the premises, at the same time catching him by the arm or shoulder. In a struggle which ensued between them, the pistol was discharged, killing the deceased. The other facts are stated in the opinion. William L. Martin, attorney-general, for the state. |